mannn im just not walking streets i climb run jump i have fun with iiit, only with my 35mm cause its a fucking tank hahah
So I think I have decided that live band photography isn't my thing. Not cuz I don't love shows and stuff, but in all honesty, it's kind of boring and every show there's 9 kids with cameras taking photos and they are annoying. The shows are always the same, people on stage, moving around. But if it's your thing, cool. That being said, the show I went to tonight was awesome but the fucking fog machines suck dick. So hard to work around fog. I need a better camera for iso and a faster short lens like an 18mm. But I can use that money for different equipment seeing as I think I'm done with shows for now.
I've been shooting utter bullshit lately. I need to get out more and up my game. Got my first roll back from out of my yashica, I am in LOVE with the lens, the colours are so subtle but beautiful. I'm gonna use it a lot more !!! [Broken External Image]:http://img709.imageshack.us/img709/8844/joe5644.jpg jaguar e type... *****s know [Broken External Image]:http://img26.imageshack.us/img26/1623/44029299.jpg [Broken External Image]:http://img260.imageshack.us/img260/4379/91057673.jpg [Broken External Image]:http://img691.imageshack.us/img691/8510/19894687.jpg [Broken External Image]:http://img196.imageshack.us/img196/1368/96943052.jpg [Broken External Image]:http://img64.imageshack.us/img64/1399/111gsg.jpg [Broken External Image]:http://img36.imageshack.us/img36/7217/joe5468.jpg [Broken External Image]:http://img340.imageshack.us/img340/639/joe5505.jpg [Broken External Image]:http://img186.imageshack.us/img186/2847/joe5520.jpg
nice photos ak, I have decided that next paycheck, if i can cut it, I'm gonna get a d300s. anyone know how it is in low light? obviously better than my d40 haha. Idk, I still like the d700 for some reason. but I can't justify 1000$ for a fx. will the image quality really change from dx to fx?
Image quality will not change in the slightest. FX and DX has nothing to do with image quality. It is simply just 2 different formats. Lenses are what determine image quality, not the camera. The camera doesn't matter. The D300s is the best low light DX camera you can buy from Nikon.
they do know. ak47 still my favorite numba one stunna, shame more kids cant live around some culture. lol.
thats what i thought. though fx does allow for higher iso correct? im just tired of having to get af-s lenses
Why? There is nothing wrong with AF-S lenses. They focus faster and quieter. There is nothing you can get in FX that you can't get in DX now a days lens wise, from wides, teles to normals. FX allows slightly better ISO quality yes, but not that much better, only if you are using a D3 which has abnormally good ISO handling.
lol i would like to have a d3 but that's too much camera for me haha. from what i have noticed is that af-s lenses are a bit more money. my new 55-200 isnt that quiet lol now what im questioning is should i just get a d300? the differences don't seem to be that big. I don't plan on using movie mode. and though the dual card slot is nice, i don't think i would use it too often. I have been having trouble with raw files
I think you're obsessing over ISO and it really doesn't matter at all. Instead of changing the gear, change your technique.
i didnt say anything about iso in my last post, im not obsessing over it, i just would like a camera that performs well in low light. thats all. but i guess a faster lens would help that as well. side note, i got asked to do some automotive shots, infant portraits, and a family portrait. never done automotive, should be cool, well, i havent done any of that haha
the d40 isnt giving me what i want. great camera, but I feel that i can benefit from a new body. I want a camera that has the autofocus motor in the body, faster fps, does better than my d40 at at least iso 800, higher mp (i have been getting asked for prints larger than I can make),and some of the features on the d300s are really nice and seem useful.
but WHY? why do you need a faster FPS? why do you need better ISO? so far ive seen shots of flowers and bands. can you give a reason to need a billion fps and 12 million ISO? nah. I bet if I gave you a manual leica you wouldn't know how to use it. If you don't even understand what the difference is between full frame and DX is, why do you want a D700? Just stick with your d40 and TAKE MORE PHOTOGRAPHS. Or don't listen to me and spend all your money on a d300s, or hell, a d700, you're photos are not going to get any better, trust me.
I don't know who that is, but please straighten it !!! I can't stand straight lines that aren't straight !
Ah yes you are right! Gotta fix that immediately thanks. I shot for this PlayTyme Magazine a while ago. They finally printed the issues I worked for. Here they are. [Broken External Image]:http://hphotos-snc3.fbcdn.net/hs449.snc3/25741_1103707969721_1737410350_198499_5083597_n.jpg [Broken External Image]:http://sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos...1103707289704_1737410350_198498_4125457_n.jpg It really does suck that I didn't have any creative control over any of this because I really hate the shots they chose to use for the cover.
Why do i want a faster fps? If I'm shooting bands, it helps a lot. And same with a better iso capability. Concerts are always dark and it's nice to have the option to get to 800 without having to worry about noise too much.Though I know getting a faster lens will help. I know what the difference between fx and dx are. I asked one question about it. If all you have seen is flowers and bands from me, then you havent been paying much attention to my posts. Maybe in the past week yeah, but I think maybe my style or whatever isnt your thing and that's cool. I think possibly you are underestimating me a little. I know a bit about stuff but I ask questions to make sure i'm right. If you would like to send me a manual leica, i would be more than happy to tell you if i can work it or not